"Lucifer, the Light-bearer! Strange and mysterious name to give to the Spirit of Darkness!~ Morals and Dogma

The flood of Noah was simply a means of noting the period of the sun's weakness during the winter months and the perilous affect this had on the populace: the period of the floods worst devastation was indicated as spanning 150 days; this number is key to recognizing the focus of the symbolism; it covers 5 months at 30 days to the month. So we could note that when we come accross this number in scriptures, whether stated as 150 days or 5 months, it is probably referring to the period of earthly tribulation (environmental adversity) that accompanied the sun's descent to lower declinations during the winter months. Concerning the symbolism of the number 40: the first struggle that the sun encounters, after falling below the Autumnal Equinox, is the struggle of transition from summer to winter. We do not go from one season to the next instantly, but rather through a period of transition; the Ancients observed that the period of transition lasted 40 days, and they wrote this in their mythology. The moribund festival of Halloween marks the end of the 40-day period, from the Autumnal Equinox of september 22 in our modern calendars; and then from Halloween to the Vernal Equinox ( the Mount Ararat) is a little less than 150 days - this is the period of time indicated by the Noah saga, that the waters prevailed upon the earth. The actual days spanned from Halloween to the astronomical coordinate designating the Vernal Equinox (March 21) is actually about 140 days; however, the Ancients measured time by the phases of the moon, most notably the New Moon or the Full Moon; consequently they noted the first Full Moon, after the crossing of the Vernal Equinx, as their time indicator, and this took them to exactly 150 days.If you strip away all the nonsensical jargon of the tale, about corraling into the Ark all of the world's creatures, so as to preserve them from the flood, you will note that the main import of the saga is to instruct people to store up provisions for a long (5 months) winter. The true dynamic within all mythology is instruction; mythology was the primary means used by the Ancients to preserve their knowledge and history. For many thousands of years, ancient mankind did not possess the means or resources to pass on knowledge in books, journals or scrolls; they had to instruct their societies orally; they discovered that the use of pictures, folk tales, symbolic stories (myths), songs, dances and gestures was the most efficacious system by which to preserve their history. ~ Malik H. Jabbar

In the Movie Evan Almighty, God(Morgan FREEman) tells Evan the rain will begin on September 22nd.~ Me

Saints they were called, and saints really they are, that name signifying, as its derivation betrays, SUNS, as each of the fixed Stars is a Sun; and which the circular halo of rays, with which the heads of their effigies were surrounded, expressly acknowledged; evangelists they were, because their office was "to preach the acceptable year of the Lord," and to mark the predicament of EVAN --- that is, of Bacchus, the Sun, through the four seasons. ~ The Rev. Robert Taylor (The Devil's Pulpit)

Genesis 3:1-51 Now the serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said to the woman, “Indeed, has God said, ‘You shall not eat from any tree of the garden’?” 2 The woman said to the serpent, “From the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat; 3 but from the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said, ‘You shall not eat from it or touch it, or you will die.’” 4 The serpent said to the woman, “You surely will not die! 5 For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

One interesting thing to note is that Eve doesn't get God's command to Adam correctly.

Genesis 2:16-1716 The LORD God commanded the man, saying, “From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; 17 but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die.”

God only says Adam couldn't eat from the tree. Eve adds that they also could not touch the tree. Eve did not exist when God gave Adam the command not to eat from the tree so she may have received her information about the tree from Adam. This demonstrates how oral transmission of information is not reliable. [The gospels were written more than 40 years after the events they portray so how could they be accurate since they rely on oral transmission over 40 years?]

God told Adam "for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die.” We know that God lied since Adam did not die the day he ate the "apple" but lived over 900 years. The serpent did not lie when he said... “You surely will not die!" because the "apple" did not kill Adam. It was not poisonous or harmful or deadly to eat. God murdered Adam. It was a very slow death but murder nonetheless.

Genesis 3:22-2322 Then the LORD God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever”— 23 therefore the LORD God sent him out from the garden of Eden, to cultivate the ground from which he was taken. Obviously the tree of life contained some nutrient that kept Adam alive forever. By denying Adam access to the tree of life, God slowly starved Adam to death so he died 900 years later. It might be similar to slowly removing the oxygen from a room in order to kill a person.

So who is the liar? God or the Serpent?

Logged

Science Climbs the Ladder of DiscoveryChristianity Kneels at the Altar of Superstition

Genesis 3:1-51 Now the serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said to the woman, “Indeed, has God said, ‘You shall not eat from any tree of the garden’?” 2 The woman said to the serpent, “From the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat; 3 but from the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said, ‘You shall not eat from it or touch it, or you will die.’” 4 The serpent said to the woman, “You surely will not die! 5 For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

One interesting thing here that doesn't get talked about much, by the way: the serpent doesn't tell Eve to eat the fruit. He doesn't encourage her to eat it, or even suggest eating it. He only describes what would happen if they ate it.

Logged

[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]: Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

One interesting thing here that doesn't get talked about much, by the way: the serpent doesn't tell Eve to eat the fruit. He doesn't encourage her to eat it, or even suggest eating it. He only describes what would happen if they ate it.

At least that falls in line with (some) christian's beliefs that only Adam and Eve had something to do with the "fall of man" or whateverHowever, it creates another contradiction - clearly YHWH hates truth. He punished the snake for telling Eve the truth about what would happen if she ate from the tree.

Logged

The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?We choose our own gods.

Genesis 3:1-51 Now the serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said to the woman, “Indeed, has God said, ‘You shall not eat from any tree of the garden’?” 2 The woman said to the serpent, “From the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat; 3 but from the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said, ‘You shall not eat from it or touch it, or you will die.’” 4 The serpent said to the woman, “You surely will not die! 5 For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

One interesting thing here that doesn't get talked about much, by the way: the serpent doesn't tell Eve to eat the fruit. He doesn't encourage her to eat it, or even suggest eating it. He only describes what would happen if they ate it.

Excellent point!The Serpent says......."For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” [Genesis 3:5]I have had Christians say that this was a lie by the serpent. They never read Genesis 3:22 Then the LORD God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil;

Before eating the "apple" Adam and Eve were like God's pet dogs. They ran naked through the garden, came when God called, [maybe when he whistled] and may have eaten from God's hand and slept at his feet.When there eyes were opened they began to think like humans and realized they needed clothes and had to provide for their own well being.

Logged

Science Climbs the Ladder of DiscoveryChristianity Kneels at the Altar of Superstition

I think I've said this before, but Eve, after eating the fruit, still thought it was a good idea to offer it to Adam. So, it seems that she knows right and wrong and still did it. It seems that by her actions, it was the right thing to do, no matter what God threatened. Or that she was just inherently evil and wanted to make Adam suffer too.

Logged

"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

I have heard some theists actually resort to the cop-out answer that "one day is with the Lord as a thousand years" and pointing out that Adam lived 900 years, which is within one day (1,000 years) "in God's eyes." Nevermind the fact that they are grossly wrenching 2 Peter 3:8 from its context, it is obvious that the "author" of Genesis considered a day to be a single 24 hour period in that, in Genesis 1:8, we read: "And the evening and the morning were the second day."

You are correct in pointing out that the story has the serpent telling the truth and God lying. Yet another reason to resign the Genesis creation story to the shelves of the mythology section.

Logged

"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence" (Christopher Hitchens).

I have heard some theists actually resort to the cop-out answer that "one day is with the Lord as a thousand years" and pointing out that Adam lived 900 years, which is within one day (1,000 years) "in God's eyes."

Special pleading much? Adam lives for 900 years. Those are literal "Earth-years". YHWH created the Earth in six days. Those are "YHWH-days".And they wonder why some of us make fun of them...

You are correct in pointing out that the story has the serpent telling the truth and God lying. Yet another reason to resign the Genesis creation story to the shelves of the mythology section.

Actually the very definition of "mythology" already does that. It's a religious narrative describing the beginning of the world and mankind.

Logged

The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?We choose our own gods.

I am no apologist, but it is important that we do not fall into the same trap as apologists and give bogus simplistic arguments that any reasonable person can see through.Ge:2:17: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

1. Even the Bronze Age peasant reciting this creation myth would not be so stupid as to have God say this and then have Adam and Eve live on - Adam to 900.2. Even if the Bronze Age peasant had said this, does anyone think that the scribe (a rare and educated profession) would have simply written this down? The Bible OT and NT is filed with rationalisations – why would this obvious one be left out?3. The whole basis of the Bible, OT and NT is a death cult: the Bible sets about explaining death and avoiding death. But it is death in the sense of mortality, as opposed to God’s condition of immortality. Mankind rejected this condition because of innocence.4. Let us consider what we would say today: "Don't breathe in that asbestos dust, you will die." There is no indication that death will be instant.5. The reader must be aware that the English in which KJV1611 was written was old-fashioned even in King James's day. This was done much for the same reasons that legal language sometimes seems frozen in the past - it adds authority. The idiom, "in the day" does not mean the same as "today"; that would be "on this [very] day" - it means "during that time" or "in the time hereafter." This is not a magic decoder ring, it is simple knowledge of the history of English.

It is the singular of Ge:26:15: For all the wells which his father's servants had digged in the days of Abraham his father, the Philistines had stopped them, and filled them with earth.

Compare our usage (i) "In Lincoln's day, slavery was accepted" and (ii) "Back when Lincoln was a boy, in those days, slavery was accepted" We don't think that (i) means some Tuesday when Lincoln was alive.

If we want to laugh at something, it is the talking snake with legs - have we missed that to focus upon our own misunderstanding?

God is quite open about lying and deceit:God Tells Lies1 Kings 22:19-24 And he said, Hear thou therefore the word of the LORD: I saw the LORD sitting on his throne, and all the host of heaven standing by him on his right hand and on his left.

And the LORD said, Who shall persuade Ahab, that he may go up and fall at Ramothgilead? And one said on this manner, and another said on that manner. And there came forth a spirit, and stood before the LORD, and said, I will persuade him.

And the LORD said unto him, Wherewith? And he said, I will go forth, and I will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And he said, Thou shalt persuade [him], and prevail also: go forth, and do so. Now therefore, behold, the LORD hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets, and the LORD hath spoken evil concerning thee.

One is not the same as the other. If you tell someone that the very day they cut their wrists they'll die, are you saying that they'll die 900 years later? Or are you saying that they'll die within a 24-hour period?

Logged

The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?We choose our own gods.

One is not the same as the other. If you tell someone that the very day they cut their wrists they'll die, are you saying that they'll die 900 years later? Or are you saying that they'll die within a 24-hour period?

That doesn't answer the question, it tries to avoid it. Either in the day they ate their death sentence was certain or it was uncertain. If it was certain, then the statement has proven true.

I understand the analogy you are making, but it is flawed because it doesn't correlate well with what is happening in Genesis 2. In Genesis 2 God is giving a simple command - "you shall not eat". Your analogy is giving a conditional predicate "if you cut your wrists" - your analogy also indicates an active verb "if you cut your wrists", but God's command is passive "don't eat". So in your analogy the penalty is a natural consequence of bleeding out, but in Genesis 2 the penalty is punitive - there is no natural relationship between eating a fruit and dying, but there is a punitive relationship - "for in the day you eat of it you shall surely die".

For your analogy to work I have to have authority over the person I am addressing. So the analogy assumes I have absolute authority over you and it goes like this: I say "You have freedom to cut all kinds of things, but you shall not cut your wrists. In the day you cut your wrists you shall surely die." Then you go and cut your wrists and I approach you immediately and I say "what have you done? did you cut your wrists like I asked you not to?" and you say yes. So I bind your wounds and then say "you will return to the dust from which you came." And in the course of time you do indeed return the dust from which you came.

In this analogy did I make any false statements? Did any of my statements prove false?

That doesn't answer the question, it tries to avoid it. Either in the day they ate their death sentence was certain or it was uncertain. If it was certain, then the statement has proven true.

Now that is a dodge. My explanation made your question irrelevant, as the statement was not proven true. You made a question with the assumption that "in the day you eat from it you will surely die" actually means "in the day that you eat from it you will become mortal", which is not supported by anything in the Bible. Nowhere does it say that A&E were immortal to begin with.

I understand the analogy you are making, but it is flawed because it doesn't correlate well with what is happening in Genesis 2.<snip>

Buddy, I've been making analogies since... dunno. I very rarely make a false analogy, and this is not one of those times. It correlates with Genesis; specifically with the important part - the claim that they will die the very day that they eat from the tree.

Logged

The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?We choose our own gods.

That doesn't answer the question, it tries to avoid it. Either in the day they ate their death sentence was certain or it was uncertain. If it was certain, then the statement has proven true.

Now that is a dodge. My explanation made your question irrelevant, as the statement was not proven true. You made a question with the assumption that "in the day you eat from it you will surely die" actually means "in the day that you eat from it you will become mortal", which is not supported by anything in the Bible. Nowhere does it say that A&E were immortal to begin with.

I didn't say it means "you shall become mortal". I said it means that "on the day you eat of it you shall surely die - ie, your death will be certain." You are correct (actually I'm impressed, most folks miss this point), there is no textual evidence that Adam was immortal before the fall. There is only evidence that in the day he disobeyed God's command his mortality would be certain, or sure.

I understand the analogy you are making, but it is flawed because it doesn't correlate well with what is happening in Genesis 2.<snip>

Buddy, I've been making analogies since... dunno. I very rarely make a false analogy, and this is not one of those times. It correlates with Genesis; specifically with the important part - the claim that they will die the very day that they eat from the tree.

It doesn't say "that they will die the very day that they eat from the tree" it says "in the day they eat from the tree they will surely die". Those are syntatically and therefore substantially different statements.

We may have to agree to disagree on this for now. I am merely trying to give an answer to your OP from an orthodox Christian perspective. I am not trying to persuade you.

I didn't say it means "you shall become mortal". I said it means that "on the day you eat of it you shall surely die - ie, your death will be certain."

The only way that assertion could make sense is if they were immortal to begin with. It makes no sense to threaten one with certain (eventual)[1] death when one's (eventual) death is already certain. As you say below, there is no such claim in the Bible.

It doesn't say "that they will die the very day that they eat from the tree" it says "in the day they eat from the tree they will surely die". Those are syntatically and therefore substantially different statements.

Uh... No. It's the same thing. By your logic when Yoda said "Yoda, I am" he didn't mean "I am Yoda".

Assuming your interpretation is correct just for the sake of argument.

Logged

The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?We choose our own gods.

I didn't say it means "you shall become mortal". I said it means that "on the day you eat of it you shall surely die - ie, your death will be certain."

The only way that assertion could make sense is if they were immortal to begin with. It makes no sense to threaten one with certain (eventual)[1] death when one's (eventual) death is already certain. As you say below, there is no such claim in the Bible.

Assuming your interpretation is correct just for the sake of argument.

I disagree with you that that is the only way my assertion makes sense. I'll explain.

We both agree the Bible makes no claim about Adam's mortal state. So he could have been immortal with the possibility of being made mortal, or he could have been mortal with the possibility of being made immortal. Either way, the assertion makes sense....

1. If Adam was immortal with the possibility of being made mortal, then on the day he eats of the tree he will surely die (ie he will be made mortal and the process of death will begin).

2. If Adam was mortal with the possibility of being made immortal, then on the day he eats of the tree he will surely die (ie his mortality will be locked in, and his death is certain).

It doesn't say "that they will die the very day that they eat from the tree" it says "in the day they eat from the tree they will surely die". Those are syntatically and therefore substantially different statements.

Uh... No. It's the same thing. By your logic when Yoda said "Yoda, I am" he didn't mean "I am Yoda".

I disagree. My logic does not suggests the Yoda thing. My logic would suggest that "Yoda, I am" and "I am Yoda" are syntatically different but substantially equivalent. My logic would also suggest that "in the day you eat of it you will surely die" does not have to mean "you will die that day" (eg, it may mean "your death will carry the attribute of certainty"), and since the textual evidence rules out the first meaning, then that statement cannot carry the first meaning.

1. If Adam was immortal with the possibility of being made mortal, then on the day he eats of the tree he will surely die (ie he will be made mortal and the process of death will begin).

2. If Adam was mortal with the possibility of being made immortal, then on the day he eats of the tree he will surely die (ie his mortality will be locked in, and his death is certain).

That sounds like a bit of a stretch of the language here. If the writer had meant to convey the inevitability of death rather than death itself, wouldn't it have been more clear to say something like "In the day that you eat of it, you shall seal your fate and one day you will die"?

Do you speak or read Hebrew or know someone who does? I would be interested to know if any of the ancient Hebrew-speaking people interpreted this text the way you propose. Perhaps an interpretation is given in the Jewish Talmud.

Logged

"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence" (Christopher Hitchens).

I disagree with you that that is the only way my assertion makes sense. I'll explain.

We both agree the Bible makes no claim about Adam's mortal state. So he could have been immortal with the possibility of being made mortal, or he could have been mortal with the possibility of being made immortal. Either way, the assertion makes sense....<snip>

But here's the thing - neither one is supported by the Bible. In fact, I think I can probably find some verses that say the exact opposite. My interpretation makes sense because it's supported by the claim that they would die.EDIT: I just remembered something. Remember that YHWH had an angel with a flaming sword guard the tree of life so that A&E wouldn't become like "them"[1] and live forever?

I disagree. My logic does not suggests the Yoda thing. My logic would suggest that "Yoda, I am" and "I am Yoda" are syntatically different but substantially equivalent. My logic would also suggest that "in the day you eat of it you will surely die" does not have to mean "you will die that day" (eg, it may mean "your death will carry the attribute of certainty"), and since the textual evidence rules out the first meaning, then that statement cannot carry the first meaning.

One is merely a rewording of the other, which is why I compared it to the way Yoda speaks. It's not even a rewording that actually changes anything, like the way Yoda speaks.

The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?We choose our own gods.

the snake in genesis is lucifer, correct?god (supposedly) never lies, correct?god says, and i quote (from my mom's bible):

Quote

in the day that you eat from the tree you will surely die

lucifer says they won't. adam and eve have TWO SEPARATE, NON-TWIN CHILDREN which means they lived for at LEAST a year and 2 months

someone (christians) mind explaining this to me?

In the day they ate of the tree did their death become sure?

Please note that "did their death become sure?" is a syntax with a sell-by date of 1611.That is a strange way of asking, "Were they immortal before eating and were they mortal thereafter?" The answer to both is obviously, "Yes."

In the Bronze Age, Story-tellers were skilled people and were not idiots. They were the equivalent of the TV stars and script writers of today and there were just as many of them - they exist today in primitive societies and as "authors" in ours. Tell the story of jumping the shark and your career is over.

Why would anyone tell a story that goes along the lines of, A: "Don't eat that, the very highest authorities all agree and have the greatest proof that it will kill you instantly."B: "Bollocks! [eats great mouthfuls and passes it to partner who does likewise.] There, nothing happened![Enter Authority]God(i): "Damn me! Why aren't you dead?... Oh well, let's get on with the story..."

Isn't it more likely that it would be,

God(ii): "That's it! I told you! You're mortal now. Here's the number of the local undertaker, you'll need him in 900 years time."

I really don't understand why people think differently, it's a story and, although anything can happen in a story, the story itself has to be internally consistent.

Genesis has internal inconsistencies as it is a story recounted by at least 4[1] people at different times and in different places. When compiling the versions, the editor thought it a good idea to bring the traditions together and therefore we see light created before the sun, man and woman created before Adam and Eve, animals in pairs and animals in sevens, etc, etc.

But the story of the Fall is coherent and consistent. And for that to be the case, "you shall surely die" must is to be understood as, "you will become mortal and eventually die."

lucifer says they won't. adam and eve have TWO SEPARATE, NON-TWIN CHILDREN which means they lived for at LEAST a year and 2 months

someone (christians) mind explaining this to me?

Literally, we are dying each minute as they tick by... yes, you and I are DYING. Adam and Even lost their immortality when they chose to go to the "dark side" and as a result they immediately began to age-- a death taking place in slow-mo.

In the Bronze Age, Story-tellers were skilled people and were not idiots. They were the equivalent of the TV stars and script writers of today and there were just as many of them - they exist today in primitive societies and as "authors" in ours. Tell the story of jumping the shark and your career is over.

I'm skeptical of a hermeneutic of "the Biblical writers weren't idiots, therefore we should retcon their stories so they don't sound so idiotic." For one thing, Yahweh repeats the Serpent's words verbatim in 3:22, acknowledging that the Serpent's claim was correct. His worry is not that his humans will die, but that they won't--they could partake of the Tree of Life and complete their ascent to divinity.

We have no reason a priori to assume that Yahweh was meant to be portrayed any smarter than he actually appears in the narrative. The idea that Yahweh is The Big-G God, superduper omnimax in every way, is a much later idea. It should not be read into Genesis. As has been shown earlier in this thread, the ancient Hebrew writers had no qualms about portraying Yahweh having a stable of demons ("lying spirits") he could send out to deceive people, or possess them Exorcist-style, as in the case of King Saul. The "problem of evil" did not occur to them, because they had no difficulties with the idea of worshiping a deity who was a capricious tyrant modeled after the earthly rulers of their time and place.

Furthermore, there is plenty of evidence that the ancient Israelites were a deeply incurious and retrograde culture, backward even by the standards of their own era. Consider the following:

Quote

21Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth;

22Even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind.

23But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you.

This passage is talking about insects, differentiating which ones people are allowed to eat and which ones they weren't. First, notice that the Israelites didn't bother to invent a word for "insect," even when using them as a food source. Instead, they used clumsy phrasing. "You know, those things that crawl and fly." And somehow, they managed to develop customs around the eating of insects without ever looking at them close enough to realize that they have six legs.

This is a culture that banned all representational art, and (as demonstrated by Biblical cosmology) possessed only the most rudimentary astronomy and mathematics. "If a circular basin is ten cubits across, how big around is it? Meh, 30 cubits is close enough. Pi=3." (I Kings 7:23-26). On the other hand, see this counter-argument. On the other, other hand, the counter-argument is actually making the case for the cleverness of the Phoenicians, whom the Israelites had to hire to create the Temple and its furnishings. The fact that they hired Ba'al-worshiping Pagans to build their holy Temple of Yahweh and its sacred furnishings is strong evidence that they could not have done the work themselves. Especially since this takes place during the wildly-exaggerated glory days of Solomon, who was supposedly the richest, wisest, most awesomesauce king in the whole world. In other words: even when writing fanciful accounts of the mighty (known-)world-straddling empire they (supposedly) had in the Good Old Days, the Hebrew scribes couldn't even imagine that their ancestors could craft a large bronze bowl on their own.

To write that their ancestors once ruled everything from the Nile to the Euphrates and had an army numbering more than a million[1]--the scribes could get away with that. To portray their ancestors as artisans capable of building a great temple and impressive furnishings for themselves--too far-fetched. Easier to claim that one of their ancient leaders once told the Sun to stay still in the sky until their army finished massacring their enemies!

Nutshell: we shouldn't be too quick to assume that the ancient Israelite scribes were especially intelligent, or that they intended to portray Yahweh as either intelligent or honest.

Also, the counter-argument kcrady linked to has a problem. It makes the assumption that when that verse talks about the circumference of the bowl, it's referring to the inner circumference. Yet the Bible verse itself specifically says that a line of 30 cubits went around it. What that means is, in order to measure the bowl, they would have had to hold the rope around the inside of the bowl, rather than the outside. Now, given that it's easier to press your hand flat (palm up) against something than to hold it palm down and press inward against something (the arm doesn't bend that way very well), it doesn't make much sense to measure from the inside like that.

So here's what I think happened. The Hebrew priests are probably the ones who came up with those measurements (but all they specified was 10 cubits across, 30 cubits around, 5 cubits high), and they instructed this Phoenician to make their fancy bowl to those dimensions. I'm assuming that this Phoenician was reasonably experienced in making things like this, meaning he almost certainly would have planned it out first. Given that, he would have recognized the problems with the dimensions the priests gave him. He may have talked to the priests (in which case he probably got told in no uncertain terms that YHWH gave those measurements and he wasn't being paid to tell them that their god was wrong), but either way, it sounds like he came up with a way to make those arbitrary measurements work, by using the inner circumference to measure the 30 cubits.

Also, the counter-argument kcrady brought up has a problem. It makes the assumption that when that verse talks about the circumference of the bowl, it's referring to the inner circumference.

The scripture cited also says that the material of the bowl was a "handbreadth thick". However, according to this line of reasoning, the difference between the outer and inner circumferences of the bowl would have to be 1.4 cubits (that is, 30 cubits for the inner circumference, 31.4 cubits for the outer circumference), which is far larger than a handbreadth. Kcrady is right.

Logged

[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]: Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

The situation you described could be accurate[1], but I don't think that it really present a problem for kcrady's argument. In fact, it lends further support to it, since it demonstrates again that the Bible writers were backwards morons, even by the standards of the time. Which really, if you think about it, is pretty sad. The standards of that time weren't exactly high. We're talking about a civilization to whom iron chariots were seriously advanced technology[2].